It is not easy to make a TV programmed which appeal to millions of non Buddhist.I am not sure whether Buddha ever said that he is not a human!I like the way he introduce Brahama Viharas without any technical jargons.The last episode soul to soul is more of a Christian belief than a Buddhist belief.For me one inch forward is a one inch forward.So it is good episode to watch. However it is no different to teaching meditation in fitness centers.

SarathW wrote:I am not sure whether Buddha ever said that he is not a human!

On one occasion the Blessed One was traveling along the road between Ukkattha and Setabya, and Dona the brahman was also traveling along the road between Ukkattha and Setabya. Dona the brahman saw, in the Blessed One's footprints, wheels with 1,000 spokes, together with rims and hubs, complete in all their features. On seeing them, the thought occurred to him, "How amazing! How astounding! These are not the footprints of a human being!"

Then the Blessed One, leaving the road, went to sit at the root of a certain tree — his legs crossed, his body erect, with mindfulness established to the fore. Then Dona, following the Blessed One's footprints, saw him sitting at the root of the tree: confident, inspiring confidence, his senses calmed, his mind calmed, having attained the utmost control & tranquility, tamed, guarded, his senses restrained, a naga. On seeing him, he went to him and said, "Master, are you a deva?"[2]

"No, brahman, I am not a deva."

"Are you a gandhabba?"

"No..."

"... a yakkha?"

"No..."

"... a human being?"

"No, brahman, I am not a human being."

"When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a deva.' When asked, 'Are you a gandhabba?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a gandhabba.' When asked, 'Are you a yakkha?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a yakkha.' When asked, 'Are you a human being?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a human being.' Then what sort of being are you?"

"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.

"Just like a red, blue, or white lotus — born in the water, grown in the water, rising up above the water — stands unsmeared by the water, in the same way I — born in the world, grown in the world, having overcome the world — live unsmeared by the world. Remember me, brahman, as 'awakened [buddha].' AN 4.36 PTS: A ii 37 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[2]The Buddha's refusal to identify himself as a human being relates to a point made throughout the Canon, that an awakened person cannot be defined in any way at all. On this point, see MN 72, SN 22.85, SN 22.86, and the article, "A Verb for Nirvana." Because a mind with clinging is "located" by its clinging, an awakened person takes no place in any world: this is why he/she is unsmeared by the world (loka), like the lotus unsmeared by water.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

Hi Tilt, great quotes, but a concern could be that, a total newcomer to Buddhism - and many in the audience would be such - might easily misconstrue the statement that the Buddha was 'not a human being'; the subtlety of the actual meaning would most likely slip right past them. I think it's best if newcomers are told that 'he was a human being who attained enlightenment' so they don't get confused...

kind regards,manas.

Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity." (SN 22.97)

Hi Tilt, great quotes, but a concern could be that, a total newcomer to Buddhism - and many in the audience would be such - might easily misconstrue the statement that the Buddha was 'not a human being'; the subtlety of the actual meaning would most likely slip right past them. I think it's best if newcomers are told that 'he was a human being who attained enlightenment' so they don't get confused...

kind regards,manas.

Learning a new religion takes work, and one will be constantly revising (American meaning of the word) what one learns. Confusion is a normal part of the process, and revision and confusion are a normal part of the process for those who have been at it for many years, and hopefully, however, there is also clarity and insight.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

Hi Tilt, great quotes, but a concern could be that, a total newcomer to Buddhism - and many in the audience would be such - might easily misconstrue the statement that the Buddha was 'not a human being'; the subtlety of the actual meaning would most likely slip right past them. I think it's best if newcomers are told that 'he was a human being who attained enlightenment' so they don't get confused...

I think Jack Kornfield did good. He was very calm and composed and answered well given his audience. He was not talking to Buddhists. The viewers I imagine would be mostly Christian, Jewish, agnostics, atheists, and new agers. Imagine how many he might have turned away if he answered something like:

O: What is God to you?JK: There is no God.

O: So what is the soul to you?JK: There is no soul, next question.

O: Then who is sitting here with me discussing this?JK: Simple, by paṭiccasamuppāda, there is avijjā which conditions viññāna, taṇhā and a host of other factors causing jāti.

Instead he basically described the aggregates and said it is fine if people want to call that a "soul." And for God, he gave an explanation devoid of any person or being. Not entirely traditional or canonical, but still a pretty good answer, given the audience.

I also thought it was fine. It's like the public talks that the Dalai Lama gives. Going into technicalities in those circumstances would be totally ineffective. But the opportunity to demonstrate to the audience that there might be something worth investigating, that the kindness and compassion must be coming from something special, is huge.